forces moving into bagged baghdad. i say we must meet this threat. the president of the united states must make some decisions, and i am convinced that the national security of the united states of america is at risk here and the sooner that all of us realize it, the better off we will be. i yield to my colleague from south carolina. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i would ask to be recognized for four minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: mr. president, contrary to what may be popular belief, there are plenty of democrats in this body very much worried about iraq. the question is what do we do about it? it is complicated, i will be the first to admit, but the first thing we have to assess as a nation, does it really matter what happens in iraq. clearly, i think it does. economically if iraq becomes a felled state, the oil production in the south falls into the

hands of the iranians. iraq becomes a fell state that spreads economic chaos throughout the region. you will feel it at the gas pump, you will feel it in your wallet eventually, so an economic collapse in iraq would affect our economy and our ability to recover. i think it would throw the world oil market into turmoil. so it matters economically. militarily, does it matter? it does in this regard. isis is an offshoot of al qaeda because al qaeda kicked them out. these people now are going to have shaven -- safe haven from alepo, syria, to the gates of baghdad. they have sworn to attack us. part of their agenda is to strike our homeland. their goal is to create an islamic state, a caliphate, that would put the people under their rule into darkness. and i don't want to hear any more war about women stories

unless you address iraq and syria. you want to see a war on women, i'll show you one. can you imagine what little girls are thinking today in the sunni part of iraq and in syria? can you imagine the hell on earth. well, the people who will do that to their own, what would they do to us? i don't mean to be an alarmist, but i am alarmed. i am just telling you what they are saying they will do. our director of national intelligence has said that the safe haven for isis in syria, now iraq, presents a great threat to our homeland. the mistake president obama is making is not to realize that we need lines of defenses. why did you want to leave a residual force behind in iraq? 10,000 to 15,000 would have given the iraqi military capacity they don't possess today, confidence they don't possess today. it would give -- have given us an edge against isis that we

don't have. a toyota truck doesn't do very well against american air power, but when you have no american air power, when you leave the intelligence capability to -- the american military leaves, the iraqi army goes dark. and you have seen a collapse of the iraqi army that i think could have been prevented. you can't kill all the terrorists to keep us safe. our goal in this trying time is to have lines of defenses, to keep the war over there so it doesn't come over here. it is in our national security interests to partner with people in iraq, and there were many who wanted a different life than isis would have. there are many shias who want to be iraqi shias, not iranian shias. i have been there enough to know. so this fateful decision to look for ways to get out totally has come back to haunt us, and we're on the verge of doing the same thing in afghanistan. i promise you the taliban would be dancing in the streets.

they just do not believe in dancing, when they heard that we were leaving in 2016. can you imagine how the afghan people feel who have fought these thugs along our side, believing we would not abandon them, now to hear that we're going to pull all our troops out but a couple hundred? can you imagine how a young woman in afghanistan feels? can you imagine how people in pakistan feel, a nuclear-armed nation that could be a direct to being in the crosshairs of the people trying to take afghanistan down? but it's not just about the people in afghanistan. what about us? president obama's going back to a pre-9/11 mentality. on september 10, 2001, we had not one soldier in afghanistan, not one dollar of aid, not even an ambassador. to those in america who think if you leave these guys alone, they will leave you alone. they are not listening to what you are saying. the only reason three thousand americans died on september 11 and not three million, they can't get the weapons to kill

three million of us. they could if they would and they are very close. mr. president, recalculate your decision on afghanistan. if you pull all our troops out, the taliban will regroup, the afghan army will meet a terrible fate and the people who wish us harm will be coming back our way. the region between afghanistan and pakistan is a target-rich environment for the world's most radical terrorists, radical islamists. so at the end of the day, mr. president, your job is to protect us. you're destroying the lines of defenses that exist. the afghan people are willing to have us stay there in enough numbers to protect them and us. mr. president, before it's too late, change your policies in afghanistan. mr. president, do not take this country back to a pre-9/11 mentality where you treat terrorists as common criminals when you read them their rights rather than gather intelligence. we're letting our defenses erode all over the world. the enemies embolden, our friends are afraid. i will tell you this, if we continue on this track, it will come here again.

with that, i yield the floor to senator chambliss. mr. chambliss: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i rise today to join my colleagues in discussing the current direction of u.s. foreign policy, especially as it relates to the middle east. the obama administration's foreign policy in this regard has unfortunately totally unraveled. the president to his credit made the middle east a priority and engaged the arab world early on in his presidency. he attempted to forge a new beginning between the united states and the muslim world, but his idealistic strategy simply has not worked. the middle east over the last three years has been besieged by a resurgence of violence, instability and terrorism. the administration has chosen to confront this challenge which has major implications for u.s. national security by leading from behind and relying on an ineffective diplomatic strategy

that involves few concrete security measures. the shortcomings of this diplomatic strategy are painfully evident today in both syria and iraq. in september of last year, the administration praised the u.s.-russian deal to disarm syria of its chemical weapons. the deal was designed to rid syria of chemical weapons and bide time for a diplomatic solution, yet here we are today in a situation where the syrians have missed countless deadlines, still have chemical weapons and continue to use barrel bombs filled with chlorine, other chemicals as well as ball bearings with impunity. in addition to the humanitarian disaster that has unfolded in syria, allowing the status quo to continue has also given the islamic state of iraq and the la vand and the al nusra front to

grow into the force we see today. make no mistake about it, terrorists are training inside syria today, planning to attack america and american interests. i have been shocked to hear commentators and some in this body refer to events in the middle east including the rise of isil in iraq as intelligence failures. the intelligence community makes its fair share of mistakes, and i am the first to criticize them when they do, but these recent events including the resurgence of isil are not intelligence failures. they are policy and leadership failures. as we saw in benghazi, the intelligence community provided ample strategic warning of the deteriorateing security situation in libya. yet the administration did little to enhance security in benghazi. failing to protect a diplomatic facility despite repeated warnings is not an intelligence failure. it's a policy and a leadership

failure on the part of the administration. with regard to iraq, intelligence including director clapper's testimony at a january january 29, 2014 hearing, has been abundantly clear that iraq was vulnerable to the threat from isil. i encourage any member to read the intelligence if they have questions regarding the intelligence community's assessment about security in iraq and the rise of isil before the fall of mosul. it was clear in 2011 as u.s. forces were withdrawing that iraq was vulnerable to a resurgence in extremist activity, and we have seen the violence escalate steadily in the last three years during this administration's failed policies. this collapse in security was again easily predicted, but we have stood by and watched as it has occurred. again, this is a policy failure,

not an intelligence failure. perhaps the most concerning aspect of this administration's foreign policy is its inadequate counterterrorism strategy. i often hear administration officials touting al qaeda's demise or touting the organization as on the run, yet nothing could be further from the truth as my friend from south carolina alluded to earlier, when we began on the floor this morning, he said yeah, al qaeda is on the run. they're running from one country to the next and taking over one country and the next. violent extremism is on the rise in the middle east, and the warning signs have been visible for years. these warning signs include the september, 2012, attack in benghazi, the rise of al qaeda-affiliated extremist groups like the al-nusra front in syria, the resurgence of isil and most recently the fall of mosul, and just yesterday, we see a terrorist flag raised over

the largest refinery inside of iraq. despite these stark warning signs, the administration has only been willing to take very limited steps to curb this disturbing trend. instead of focusing on making counterterrorism operations more effective, the administration has been focused on ending the wars in iraq and afghanistan while america's enemies grow stronger. this approach has been a huge gamble that continues to jeopardize america's security. the administration has sidelined many of the tools that we use successfully to counter al qaeda in the years immediately after 9/11, including the effective long-term detention and interrogation of enemy combatants. as a result, we know far less today about many of these terrorist organizations. since the president ordered the closure of the detention facility at guantanamo bay in january, 2009, our nation has been without a clear policy of

detaining a suspected terrorist. without such a policy, including one that identifies a facility for holding terrorists that are captured outside of afghanistan, the intelligence community's ability to conduct ongoing intelligence operations has been severely limited. i recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for handling terrorists, but our detention policies must foster intelligence collection before any prosecution begins. al qaeda, its affiliates and other terrorist groups are determined to attack the united states. we constantly face new plots and operatives looking for ways to murder americans. like the plt to put another i.e.d. on a u.s.-bound aircraft. thankfully this plot and others didn't materialize, but we're not going to always be that fortunate. we know that al qaeda in the

arabian peninsula or aqap today represents one of the biggest threats to the u.s. homeland and personnel serving overseas. they are continually plotting against our interests and seeking new recruits, especially among our own citizens as well as former guantanamo detainees. explosive experts like ibrahim al-asiri continue to roam free. the proposed closure of guantanamo bay presents significant risk for the united states and yemeni efforts to counter aqap inside yemen. a substantial portion of the detainees remaining at guantanamo bay are yemeni citizens. transferring these individuals to a country plagued by prison breaks, assassinations and open warfare at this point could prove very catastrophic. these detainees would likely join several other former gitmo

detainees who have returned to the fight in yemen, further destabilizing the country and worsening an already tenuous security situation. the most recent example of a totally failed and dangerous policy on the part of this administration is the exchange of five guantanamo detainees for sergeant bergdahl. we're all glad sergeant bergdahl is back. we should have done everything we could to get him back, and thank goodness he is now with his family. but the deal, the exchange of five individuals from guantanamo bay who wake up every morning now thinking of ways that they can kill and harm americans was not the right thing to do. there were other ways to handle it, yet this administration almost callously, without notifying congress -- and by the way, that was clearly intentional, the failure to notify congress of what they planned to do when they signed a memorandum on may 12 and didn't release these individuals for

another two and a half weeks, gives you a pretty clear indication that this administration did not want to come to congress and say that we are going to exchange these five guantanamo prisoners, and the reason they didn't is because they knew that there would be objections from both sides of the aisle to doing such a dangerous thing and setting such a terrible precedent. whether it's in afghanistan on other parts of the middle east, americans have fought and died in the war against al qaeda. our nation is weary of war but threatening elements still remain and those five individuals that i just alluded to are clearly threats to the united states. i have asked the president to declassify the personnel files on those five individuals, tell the american people what we know about them, mr. president, and then look the american people in the eye and say this was a good deal. i know they're going to return to the fight and they're going to seek to kill and harm americans, but this was a good deal. well, that's for the american

people to decide ultimately, and i urge president obama and my congressional colleagues as well as the american people not to abandon the gains that we've made in the fight against terrorism since 9/11, but let's remain steady and let's continue to fight the good fight. with that i'll yield to my friend from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, i want to join my colleagues today to discuss the administration's misguided foreign policy, especially as it relates to afghanistan. and the threat of al qaeda, the taliban, and the acany network. despite what this administration would have you believe, al qaeda, and the taliban remain capable and committed adversaries in afghanistan. they are a clear strategic threat to the safety, the

security and the stability of the region and continue to commit to acts of violence against u.s. troops, property ploth against u.s. interests in the region and here at home. for some reason this administration has time and again failed to recognize the simple fact, or worse, they've chosen to ignore it. al qaeda is not decimated, regardless of what ambassador rice may have communicated to the american people. its senior leadership continues to plot devastating attacks and more troubling, serve as an inspiration to a series of affiliates in yemen, somalia, iraq, and elsewhere. these affiliates are plotting against the united states of america, here at home, with the guidance, advice and financial support of al qaeda's senior most leadership. the al qaeda brand is alive and well, and the obama

administration's strategy to end the conflict, not win it, reveals a profound failure to analyze threats in the region, the world, and the united states of america. despite what this administration would have you believe, leaving afghanistan before our work is done will not, will not, end the fighting. we cannot take the pressure off off, or our enemies will bring the fight here to our doorstep here at home. but al qaeda is not well a loan in afghanistan. it's well established that the aoccoquanlyi -- acany network is the link between the taliban and al qaeda. it is responsible for a significant number of u.s. casualties and injuries on the battlefield in afghanistan and continues to actively plan potential catastrophic attacks against our interests and the

interests of others in the region. the group routinely targets civilians, civil ya pnd and -- civilians and uses murder as an intimidation tablggettic against the afghan people. they've mounted assaults against civilians and u.s. forces with deadly effectiveness. yet the administration took until late 2012 at the urge of the united states senate in a bill that i introduced to actually name the acany network as a foreign terrorist organization. why was that important? because that act changes the game. it provides us the full range of diplomatic and military tools to use directly against them. it's against that backdrop that the administration then negotiated with the akani network, the release of five high-level taliban fighters for

sergeant bowe bergdahl's return. in other words, the president rewarded them for their incarceration of a u.s. service member, strengthened its relationship with the taliban, emboldened the taliban and undermined the afghan government. all with one decision. does anyone in this administration believe that five high-ranking taliban officials when set free would not return to the fight? if they do, then they haven't paid attention for the last decade or longer. i understand that this nation is weary of war. i understand the sacrifices made by our service members and i work every day to ensure that our brave members, veterans, are provided the care and treatment they deserve. their efforts should not be in vain. mr. president, as we're here

today, marine sergeant kyle carpenter will receive the medal of honor. 19-year-old when he signed up to go to the marine corps, a young marine in combat to save his fellow marines. he jumped on a grenade. kyle capper the lived. not only lived, after 40 surgeries, today he completed his freshman year at the university of south carolina at 24 years old. he's an american hero. he could be any one of our children or our grandchildren. what makes this country great is we have people like kyle carpenter that step up when asked and they do more than we could ever ask of them. our service members served and sacrificed overseas so we could be safe at home. we could not in good faith let the administration dishonor their efforts with a misguided

policy. the continued draw down of u.s. and coalition forces in afghanistan will provide al qaeda, the taliban and the akani network with a safe haven to train operatives and plot further attacks against the united states of america and our allies. contrary to the campaign statement of the president and vice president, al qaeda is not on the run and i urge this administration to avoid further actions that may endanger our nation. mr. president, i yield the floor to senator inhofe. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent i be allowed to speak until the arrival of the senator from alabama, senator sessions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, the subject today, of course, is the failed foreign policy of this president and this administration and it's really

hard to do it in a limited period of time because once something happens like benghazi and we get into the middle of that thing, then all of a sudden you turn around and this president turns loose arguably the five most heinous terrorists from -- from gitmo, at the same time we have a policy that was going so well in iraq and now we find out that that's not working out either. if i have time i'll touch on that. the first thing i want to do is mention this benghazi thing. being the rab be on the armed services committee, i had the opportunity there and be there, it happens that charles stevens, the ambassador that was sent over there and was killed, one of the four killed in benghazi, was a friend of mine. he was in my office. we spent time together, we talked about the threats that were out there and then as we got closer to this time, he

realized and started sending messages to the president, to the white house, to us, to send security over there. he said that right now the -- the terrorists are actually training in benghazi, actually have had their flags flying. they knew that they're organizing something, probably for an anniversary of the 9/11. so he knew that. he had requested it. and the president elected not to send help at that time. and the question a lot of people have, they'll say inhofe, how do you know the president knew that was an organized attack? i can tell you how. in our system of government we have four people who are responsible for advising the president on threats, on intelligence, they are the c.i.a. director, at that time was john brennan, the director of intelligence, james clapper, the secretary of defense was leon panetta and the

chairman of the joint chiefs of staff was general dempsey. all of them were acknowledged when the annex was hit in benghazi it was an organized -- that same day -- an organized terrorist attack. they you a knew it. they expected it, but then they knew for a fact it was. now, so you're talking about the -- the individuals who are responsible for advising the president, all of them were well aware that on the day of the annex attack in benghazi that it was an organized terrorist attack. and it was several days later that they sent susan rice to all of the shows in order to try to make it sound like it was some video that somebody had. why would the president not want to admit that this was an organized terrorist attack? it's right before the election, and he had a lot of the people, the polls showed loot of the people thought with osama bin laden been captured there was no longer that big threat out there in the middle east and that would inure to his benefit.

it's for political reasons and we ended up losing four lives. and then just recently they are saying now, oh, now they found this abu khalatta. this is someone around for two years, the press has been talking to him for two years and why are they saying now of all times this is the guy that perpetrated benghazi when, in fact, this all came from the white house? i just think it's covering it up and am very much offended by that. one thing i wanted to talk with and i know some of the other members are going to be here and i won't abuse the time given me, but is having to do the release of the four -- of the five terrorists, taliban terrorists on the american people to be released. let me tell you a side of this that people are not talking about that i feel strongly is the reason for it. first of all, this president is

in the last half of the second term or approaching the last half of the second term. as is always the case when you get down toward the end of your term, you start looking for a legacy. what was his legacy? one of his legacy is closing gitmo. this president has been talking about closing gitmo for as long as i can remember, certainly longer than he's been president. you wonder why. i go back and i tell people in oklahoma, you know, they say why does he want to close gitmo? and you can't answer that. we've had gitmo since 1903. it's the only good teal diehl that we -- one of the few good deals in government, only pay $4,000 a year for that and half the time the cubans don't cash the check. so we have this thing and we had actually 778 people there incarcerated and being intertate gaited prior to -- interrogated prior to the time that obama became the president of the united states. now we're down to 149.

as far as gitmo, that resource, no one argues with the fact that humane treatment is beyond smin anyone's expectation. there's no place else they can do that. they are fully compliant with the geneva convention, they've had people go in and look at the maximum security prison and attested to by human rights organizations, the red cross and everyone else agrees that it is a very humane place. while they're interrogating and as i said, there's no place else they can do this because if you start doing this in our court system, obviously they get miranda rights, constitutional rights and people are pretty offended when they find out. that keeps us from getting information that would affect some of the others. we have an expeditionary legal complex there, the only one like this in the world where they can actually do this. sand and so this is a place where we can actually get in there, interrogate, get

information, incarcerate people, not intermingle the terrorists with the prison population in this country which is what the president has been talking about doing. what why do i say that? i say that because these guys are terrorists. they're not criminals. you put them in our prison system, they're -- by definition their job is to train other people to become terrorists and that's what with he they would be doing, training the prison population to become terrorists. i have to say this, all they talk about osama bin laden and the -- and all the fact that we do have him, very glad that we were able to bring him down but how do did we do it? through information we received through interrogation at gitmo at guantanamo bay. i only say that because people wonder why in the world would he be wanting to do this and how does he want to fulfill this expectation or this legacy that he has? let me tell you how i think. if he would take out of the 149 individuals that are left there

the five most heinous terrorists, most dangerous taliban terrorists and turn them loose, that would put him in a position then to get rid of the rest of them with the exception of those awaiting war crimes trials. so what happened, he turned them loose number one, number two, he told the taliban exactly when the united states is going to leave and regardless of the conditions on the ground and then thirdly, he has said that he is going to declare an end of hostilities. now, that is a phrase, a proper phrase, end of hostilities. this is not a war, it's a hostility and if he does that, that would then give him the justification for opening the gates, turning everyone loose from gitmo and closing gitmo. that in my opinion is the estimation and what are the threats that we're facing as a result of that? we're in a position right now where we have five people that are turned loose. now, even -- even if we trusted qatar to hold these five

guys for a period of a year, still the philosophy there would be all right i'll turn you loose if you promise not to kill americans for a year. that doesn't make sense. so this is something that should not have happened. we now have the people there making decisions and they're celebrating as we speak, there's one of the five individuals, fassil. he's a taliban commander over at afghanistan. listen to this, mr. president. he said and he's talking about faso, one of the five guys, it's like pouring 10,000 taliban fighters into the battle on the side of jihad. now the taliban have the right lion to lead them in the final moment before victory in afghanistan. so that's what happened with these guys. that's how it's viewed over there. and it's an atrocity that it did happen. with that i will yield the floor to senator cornyn. mr. cornyn: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: how much time remains for the allocation on this side's time? the presiding officer: the republicans have eight minutes remaining. mr. cornyn: i know we perhaps have another member coming to speak. would the chair please advise me after i've used five minutes of that eight minutes. the presiding officer: i will do that. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to talk about the intersection of national security and our mounting debt. over the last five years, president obama's had multiple occasions to embrace real, structural entitlement reform that would help solve our long-term debt problem. now, you might wonder, why am i talking about debt when the subject that we're generally talking about is national security, including what's happening in iraq and syria. it's because, as the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said, admiral mcmullen,

when he asked what the single-biggest threat to our national security was, he said, it's our debt. the president had an opportunity when the simpson-bowles commission released its recommendations in late 2010 -- as you'll recall, this is a bipartisan commission the president himself appointed to help come up with a formula to deal with this -- with our fiscal problems. unfortunately, once they made their recommendation in december 2010, the president walked away from it and nothing came of it. even though we're facing in addition to $17 trillion in debt, we're facing more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. and perhaps it's because those numbers are so big that we have a hard time getting our head around it, that people have become desensitized to the urgency of dealing with our debt and these unfunded liabilities. but the president has never once endorsed any sort of reform necessary to deal with this

challenge or to prevent a future crisis. the fact of the matter is, somebody, someday -- probably these young men and women who are working here as pages and others their age -- they're going to have to be the ones to pay this back, because our generation will have failed them unless we meet the challenges that this presents. it seems like the only part of the federal budget that the president is eager to cut is national defense. under his latest budget plan, defense spending would drop from 3.4% to 2.3% of g.d.p. by 2023. at the same time, we're told that the united states army might be shrunk to its smallest size since pre-world war ii. president obama needs to realize that even america's current military capabilities are proving inadequate to meet global challenges. for example, one former assistant secretary of defense has declared that because of pentagon budget cuts, president

obama's highly touted pivot to asia can't happen. in other words, despite promoting asia -- the asia pivot as a crucial element of american foreign policy,s presiden, the t has failed to take the necessary fiscal step to make that happen or could happen. this makes it a hollow policy. one where the promises are extravagant but the delivery is apeople in and i can one that will do major damage to u.s. credibility among our allies and adversaries -- anemic and one that will do major damage to u.s. caibility among our allies and adversaries. this has alarmed senior initials all branches of government. admiral jonathan greener has said that reverting to sequestration levels in 2016 would lead the navy to -- that is too small and lacking the advanced capabilities needing to execute the missions that the nation expects of the navy.

the secretary of the air force has said that going back to those spending levels would compromise our national securi security. ray odierno, chief of staff of the army, said it would put our young men and women in uniform at much higher risk. in other words, the president cannot simply keep cutting defense spending and the military in order to fund othe other -- his other priorities. and at the same time ignore the 70% of spending that's on autopilot, so-called entitlement spending. that's where the big money is and that's where the reforms need to take place. but it won't happen without a leader. well, we all know what's happening in iraq and i know time is short so i -- i don't want to take any more time than's in way from my colleague from alabama. but this map reflects what's happening now in iraq. the civil war in syria, which the president had drawn a red

line, which once crossed there was no consequences associated with that. and now this -- now this border between iraq and syria has become -- basically been wiped away and we see all of these places where the isis, a horrific terrorist group that's even worse than al qaeda, has basically taken charge. so this is what happens with the failure of leadership. and unfortunately this is where we are in so many places around the world. i know time's short and i want to make sure my colleague from alabama has some time to speak, so at this point, i'd ask the rest of my remarks be made part of the record and yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask consent that i be allowed to speak for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president,

when you -- a nation commits itself to a military effort, it's a very significant, august decision. i was here when we voted to utilize military force in iraq and afghanistan. a majority of the democrats in this body supported that. the american people supported that. and through tough times, success was achieved in the sense that iraq was -- had elected, they had a functioning government. the u.s. military was drawing down its personnel. the country had a reconciliation with the sunni and the shia and the kurds and we were on a path that gave us some prospect, i

believe it's fair to say. critics can have different opinions but it's pretty clear to me that we had prospects for successful conclusion of that effort, which would allow a relatively stable, relatively democratic nation to be established that didn't provide threats to the united states or its neighbors. and -- and so we shouldn't have done that. well, we did that. that's what happened. that was the situation when president obama took office, and he failed, in my opinion, in negotiating the kind of drawdown and the statuses of forces agreement that needed to be established to be able to create credibility in this new and fragile regime and hold -- help hold their military together, keep them trained while we reduce dramatically our presence and military activities. we would be there as a -- a

supporting background, equipment, intelligence, aircraft, lift capability that would have given them confiden confidence. it's very clear when we just said, well, we can't reach an agreement, we're pulling everybody out. we had general bedernerik talk to us recently and he told us that he has a hundred soldiers. i asked him if he were the current general petraeus, he said, yes, with a bit of a smile. but he only has a hundred peop people. so i guess i would say, we're worried about it. one of the things that's so critical in our conduct and understanding of what we are involved in is to understand that the nature of the terrorist threat is going to be there for a long time. we are just going to be dealing with it for a long time. there's a significant number --

not a majority by any means, but a significant number -- of radicalized people in the middle east who want to destroy the united states. they see us as an evil force and they oppose what we oppose. they want to take over their neighbors and continue to expand. they want to knock down reasonably functioning regimes that provide at least some freedom and order in their societies and they want to impose a caliphate, they want to impose a theocratic government and legal soms those countries. ansystem in those countries. it's not good for us. not good for other countries and not good for the united states and the world. so one of the things we have to do and have to understand is that when you capture a person committed to the destruction of the united states and is attacking our people, they're not criminals. they are warriors. and most of their activities are

clearly contrary to the laws of war so they are unlawful combatants and they are -- when you capture a soldier in battle, whether lawful or unlawful, normally if they've complied with the rules of war, unlike this group, you don't try them per se, you hold them until the war is over, approximately a peace treaty has been signed, until an agreement has been reached. that is not being -- not happening now. and as a result, we have a confused policy that is releasing dangerous criminals like the last five we just released under this confused thinking. it fundamentally arose when the left determined to attack president bush, attack guantanamo and it became some symbol in their minds of the

policies we were using to detain people who were captured, enemy combatants, law enforcement or unlawful -- lawful or unlawful. when you capture, you hold them. you don't release them so they can go back to the war and kill you. we're going to send soldiers out to capture? and then once they've been captured, we're going to release them so they continue into the war? it goes against all commonsense. as justice jackson once said, the constitution is not a suicide pact. but we've never -- this is -- this is consistent -- mr. president, i would ask for one additional moment to conclude. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. sessions: so they have to be treated properly and that sort of thing but they don't have to be released. we captured, for example, nazzir hamed rouka last year for conspiring with bin laden. he goes back to yemen and

somalia in the 1988 bombings in east africa that killed 224 people before 9/11. he's a treasure-trove of intelligence. our group went in and captured him, took him away at risk of their lives and they took him out on the ship. he said he was sick and not doing well and so what happened? they took him to the united states justice department, turned him over for civilian trials. so the purpose of capturing him was to get intelligence. this is a warrior. you want to talk to him, we want to see what we can learn about him. he was immediately placed in federal custody where he gets a lawyer, a speedy trial, a public trial and the things that prisoners of war don't get and don't have to be given. but yet this has all happened. it's been happening over and over again. and it evidenced a lack of understanding of the nature of the conflict we're engaged in.

it evidenced -- it evidences a policy that is dangerous to our safety. and it is wrong to send out americans and capture people like this and then treat them in a way that allows them to minimize the opportunity to obtain intelligence information. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. the photographs on this poster are of a young woman, lori

jackson, a connecticut resident, who died tragically, needlessly, savagely in oxford at the hands of her estranged husband. lori is the reason that i have introduced legislation named after her to close a gaping loophole in our federal law. well, she is not really the only reason. tragically, there are thousands of other women and some men who have shared her fate because of a gap in federal law that permits intimate partners to continue to have firearms, even when they are under restraining orders from the court. those restraining orders are placed against them because they evidence clear danger to their partner, whether their husband

or their spouse, and the reason that they pose danger is that they become violent. the gap in the law is that it applies only to permanent restraining orders, not temporary ones, and lori jackson sought a temporary restraining order when her estranged husband threatened her physically and her two 18 month old twins at their home. she sought and she obtained a temporary restraining order, and literally the day before that temporary restraining order was to become permanent and the prohibition against her husband having a firearm would go into effect, he gunned her down at her parents' home where she had sought refuge with her children. gunned her down and savagely and

severely wounded her mother as well with those same firearms. the temporary restraining order against lori's husband was completely ineffective, powerless to prevent him from using that gun against her to kill her and her mother, severely wounding her. tragically, lori's story is star from unique. jasmine leonard also had a temporary protection order against her husband. she died last week after her husband shot her. china joy young celebrated her 18th birthday just days before she was shot and killed by her estranged boyfriend, despite the temporary restraining order she had against him. young was three months pregnant. barbara diane dye was granted a temporary restraining order and

then fled to texas. she returned only for a hearing on the permanent restraining order, and that's when her husband cornered her, cornered her in a bank parking lot and shot her repeatedly with a .357 magnum revolver, killing her there. when domestic abusers have access to firearms, it isn't just abuse victims who are at risk. a violent husband under a temporary restraining order in brookfield, wisconsin, followed his wife to the salon where she worked. not only did he shoot and kill his wife but he killed two additional people and wounded four more. after erica bell got a temporary restraining order against her husband, he came to her at church. he followed her there. he shot and killed erica. he also shot four of her

relatives, including her grandparents, great aunt and a cousin. this scourge of domestic violence combined with the epidemic of guns in our society causing gun violence is a toxic recipe, and we must do more against domestic abuse. that's why i have formed an organization in connecticut called men make a difference, men against domestic violence. it is a program really launched in cooperation with our largest domestic prevention and response agency, interval house, which does a wonderful job against domestic violence. it is a commitment of prominent men, all men, providing role models for young men and boys to reach out to other boys and take action to prevent domestic

violence. we can truly make difference as men. we can fight domestic violence, and we can gradually make progress against it because it is a cycle. more than 70% of all men who commit domestic violence have seen or experienced it in their own lives, and these kinds of organizations can help stop and stem domestic violence. but domestic violence combined with guns is a recipe for death. as our former colleague frank lautenberg used to say, the difference between a murdered wife and a battered wife is a gun. women are five times more likely to die as a result of domestic violence when there is a gun in the home than when there is not. so i have introduced the lori jackson domestic violence survivor protection act. it's a long name.

the most important part of the name is lori jackson because her story really tells it all. there is no reason that we should fail to protect women when they are protected by a temporary restraining order rather than a permanent restraining order. in fact, there is every reason to provide more protection in the first week or two weeks when there is a temporary restraining order in place. remember, the temporary restraining order is granted not on a whim a question. it's granted because of specific credible evidence that an intimate partner poses a physical danger. and it's granted by a judge after considering that evidence. the moment of danger in a

relationship like lori jackson's is when one partner tells another -- it may be a spouse, it may be a boyfriend, girlfriend, she is leaving, he wants a divorce, it's over. that is the moment of maximum rage. that is the moment of greatest danger. that is the moment of uncontrollable wrath. at that moment of greatest danger, the law is at its weakest. there is no prohibition against that enraged, impulsive hurt, angry individual from continuing to possess or purchase a firearm. the lori jackson domestic violence survivor act -- protection act very simply closes that gaping loophole in our law, providing that just as

with a permanent protective order, an individual subject to a temporary restraining order cannot purchase or possess a firearm. very simple common sense measure. but it can help save lives. it can help save others like lori jackson and the individuals whom i have named. many of them courageous and strong individuals like lori snacks who broke with an abusive relationship. the experts in this field will tell you that is among the most difficult things to do. and it puts a woman at her most vulnerable point in a

relationship. and again, that is the time when current law fails her. that is the reason that we should close that loophole. other measures are also important and necessary. i want to salute our colleague, senator klobuchar, for her proposal that will close an equally important loophole in our law relating to people who are convicted of stalking. that is an eminently important and sensible step to take. it would kemp guns out of the hands of -- keep guns out of the hands of stalkers. likewise other legislation to help enforce our gun laws. and similarly the comprehensive measure of mental health initiatives, school safety steps, background checks, part

of a comprehensive effort to stop gun violence in our country. they are all important and necessary and i want to thank my colleague and friend, senator murphy of connecticut for championing them as a teammate in this effort, and he has joined me in supporting this legislation. i named this legislation after lori jackson as a memorial to her and a gesture of sadness and outrage at her death. every man or woman who has lost his or her life through a domestic violence gun homicide deserves to be memorialized on this floor, as does every victim of gun violence. with more than a thousand names added as victims every year, i believe that we can honor them best by passing this

legislation, and i urge my colleagues to join with me in honoring lori jackson, jasmine leonard, china joy young, barbara diane dye, zena daniel, all the young women who have lost their lives to domestic abusers and whose lives might have been saved. we can't know for sure. there is no certainty that they would be alive today, but we know their chances would have been better if that temporary protective order had also protected them from an abuser who possessed or bought a firearm at that moment of maximum danger. we continue to grieve in connecticut for all victims of gun violence, especially the 20 beautiful children and six great educators who lost their lives. just this past sunday, i

attended in west haven the opening of a 24th playground. where angels play is the name of the playground organization headed by a firefighter, very resolute, steadfast public servant, bill lavin. this playground honoring one of those children was on the beach in west haven, a moment of haunting and exquisite beauty when all of us gathered in honor of charlotte bacin. on a sun-filled day, fjords, joe and joanne bacin and their son guy were with us. each of those playgrounds is a memorial to those children who have died, and we have likewise honored the six great educators

who perished. there are ways to honor and remember and memorialize these victims. alexis volpe in middletown did a small garden, and she was joined by the daisy scouts there. all of them are beautiful in their own special way, but action is the best way to honor the memory of the victims of gun violence. action to adopt commonsense, sensible measures that will help prevent gun violence in the future, and none is more important than honoring and remembering and acting to save others like lori jackson who will always be with us in spirit and memory and i thank the colleagues who have joined me in this effort, senator durbin,

murray, boxer, murphy, hirono, warren, menendez who have joined in sponsoring the lori jackson domestic violence survivor protection act, and i thank the chair. i note the absence of a quorum. i'd like to yield the floor instead of noting the absence of a quorum to my good colleague and friend, the senator from west virginia. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: thank you, mr. president. my good friend from connecticut and i appreciate his unwavering commitment to continue to fight for justice and fairness for all and he does it every day. i'm here to say happy birthday to west virginia. we're 151 years on june 20, tomorrow, we will be 151 years

old. i rise today to honor my great state. i have often said this mr. president -- some of us were lucky enough to be born and raised there and i'm one of the lucky ones. some people were smart enough to move there and some people just wish they could get there. so under any circumstance we will take you. this is a state that truly embodies a brave and daring declaration of statehood that is unprecedented in american history. born out of the fiery battles of the civil war, west virginia was founded by patriots who were willing to risk their lives in the united pursuit of justice and freedom for all. and since that day 151 years ago, june 20, 186 when our state officially became the 35th state admitted into the union, west virginia's rich cultural and strong traditions grew. that year the great seal of the state of west virginia was adopted and we all have our seals and preambles in our states, depicting who we are as a people and a culture.

with our birth states inscription in the center of our seal, the seal features a boulder, a boulder, rock, with two crossed rifles, a liberty cap sitting on top to express our state's importance fighting for liberty and justice. on either side of the boulders stand two men. on the left a farmer with an ax and plow to represent agriculture. on the right a miner with a pick action and a sledgehammer to represent the industry. finally, along the outer rings is the text, the state of west virginia, montani semper libre, mountain years, always free. that seal designed in 1863 during america's bloody civil wars leaves a lasting imprint of who we are as the people of the the west virginia. like the farmer and the miner we cannot forget the others who embarked on our state's improbable journey to

independence from virginia and to our very own place in the union, the land of the free and the home of the brave. we believed, we believed way back then that justice would prevail. those pivotal figures claimed over mountains, crossed raging rivers, tussled through forests and fought against bondage and oppression to be free. because of their bravery and patriotism, the mountain years -- mountaineeeers are still always free. since our historic beginning the people of west virginia have never failed to answer our country's call. we have more veterans were capta than almost any other state in the nation. when -- on 2010 there were more west virginians percentagewise who signed up to enter all branches of our armed forces to fight for our country. i'm proud of our veterans and the people serving today. ever since we chose the stars and stripes and to live under a constitution that promised a constant pursuit of a more per

expect union of states, no demand has been too great, no danger too daunting and no trial too threatening. our state's abundance of natural resources coupled with the hard work and sacrifice of our people have made america stronger and safer. since our birth, we have mined the coal that fueled the industrial revolution, powered our railroads across the continental united states and produced a steel that built our ships and skyscrapers and factories. we did it all. our little state has given every ounce of blad that we have. west virginia continues to generate electricity that powers our homes and businesses. we have filled the ranks of our military forces in numbers far greater than expected from our little state of less than two million people. west virginia's population holds one of the highest populations of veterans among all states. like i always say, west virginia is one of the most patriotic in the country. we always have and always will

be. the best steel, the best steel comes from the hottest fires my father always told me that. and the fires of the civil war transformed us. we forever branded ourselves to the ideals of the declaration of independence and the guarantees of the u.s. constitution, and as the mountaineers who will always be free, we're tough, we're independent, we're inventive, we're honest, our character has been shaped by the wilderness of our state. its welcoming mountains, countless hollows, rushing streams, boundless blue skies and green forests. we've got it all. west virginia is a place of coal mines and soaring eagles, boip scouts and community leaders, sparkling lakes and captivating mountains. winding back country and smoky barbecue joints, battlefields, and hidden trails, college towns and small towns and it goes on and on. west virginia is a place of power, polish and passion, a

special place i get to call home along with all my other west virginians. we've had our ups and downs, setbacks and triumphs, famous family feuds, neighborly fights, timely trield triels, unexpected challenges thrown our way. but the spirit of west virginia has never been broken and it never will. i learned a long time ago growing up in a small coal mining town of farmington, west virginia with hardworking men and women when things get tough, by god, we just got tougher. it's the way it had to be to survive. mr. president, tomorrow as people across west virginia celebrate west virginia's 151st birthday, a day we now know as west virginia day, i encourage all west virginians to remember, to remember who we are, where we've come from and where we're going to go. i encourage uls all to remember the first mountaineers and the leaders and strong laborers who paved the way for us and future generations to come. we have so many reasons to be proud of our beautiful state,

its kind and compassionate people, powerful landscapes, unique customs, rich culture and fascinating history. john kennedy once said 1963 when he came for our celebration, our centennial at that time, he said sometimes it was -- it was raining cats and dogs that day he spoke on the capitol steps. sometimes the sun doesn't always shine in west virginia but the people always do. and he was so prolific in what he knew and health the heartbeat of our state. every west virginian contributes to our state's amazing story and on west virginia day i encourage all west virginians to seize this opportunity to imagine the future of this great state and this nation and be proud of how far we've come and how far we will go together. mr. president, we are west virginians, even in the darkest and the gloom, we look to a just god that directs the storm. and like the brave little patriots who made west virginia

the 35th star on old glory, west virginians love of god and country and family and state remain unshakeable, and that is well worth celebrating every year. so god bless every west virginian, god bless those who came before us and that will come after us. and happy birthday, west virginia. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i do notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk clerk. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i rise -- the presiding officer: excuse me, we're in a quorum call. mr. kaine: if i could ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection is there objection? without objection.

mr. kaine: mr. president, i rise today to talk about an american memory and the absence of a memory. and the lesson that i draw both from the memory and the absence compels me to introduce a resolution today. first the memory. i would submit that the most known photograph in the history of the united states is the alfred eisenstat frerotte of a sailor kissing a woman in times square. if you google v.j. day photo, you'll find more than 31 million links. joy, celebration, gratitude, the photo says it all. it was important to celebrate the end of that war and to thank those from that greatest generation who had made it possible by serving. and we've continued to celebrate

them, mr. president, most recently in the recent commemoration of the 70th anniversary of d-day. now the absence of a memory. where was that photo -- that joy at the end of the vietnam war? there was none. no iconic photo, no ritual moment of celebration and thanks. and that was a mistake. this generation of americans, mr. president, has lived through a war that began in the days after 9/11. i recently heard a student about the same age as our pages here say while i don't know war, all i've known is war. while i don't know war, all i've known is war. the combination of operations enduring freedom, iraqi freedom and new dawn have lasted 3

years. it is the longest period of war in the history of the united states. and during these 13 years of war, over 2.5 million americans have been deployed to iraq and afghanistan, hundreds of thousands completing multiple tours. this is from an all-volunteer force that comprises less than 1% of the american population. more than 6,800 members of the armed services have been killed in action and more than 52,000 have been wounded in action. and now, this long period of war and sacrifice is coming to an end. u.s. combat operations in iraq ceased in 2011, and all u.s. combat operations in afghanistan will end this year, by the end of 2014. of course, while the combat mission may end, the sense of duty of our service members

continues, and global challenges continue. and u.s. troops will remain in afghanistan in noncombat positions just as u.s. troops remained in germany or japan or korea in noncombat posts. but in a deep and fundamental way, 2014 represents the end of a momentous and generation defining war. and the question for this generation of americans is, how will we commemorate the end of this war? when the war started, it started with a catastrophic attack on the world trade center and on the pentagon in virginia. with solemn speeches by the president to congress and to the american public, whether delivered here in the capitol or standing on pie piles of rubblet ground zero, with congress debating and voting to do the most serious thing a nation ever

does which is go to war -- it began, as serious undertakings should, with a sense of seriousness and purpose and even ritual. that is how this war began in america. how will we choose to end it? will we take steps to publicly commemorate the end of the war? or will we allow the important moment to just pass unacknowledged and unrecognized with no icon i can moment or memory? will we celebrate with and thank those who have served, or will we just turn our attention to the next headline or the next issue or the next scandal or the next crisis? i believe that as a generation, we do not want to repeat the mistake of the vietnam era and allow the sacrifice of so many to just pass unnoticed. and so together, with my cosponsor, senators burr and

blumenthal, i introduce today a resolution calling on the nation to hold a special "welcome home" commemoration on veterans day 2014. november 11 is the day we honor the sacrifice and service of every generation of american veterans. november 11, 1918, was generally regarded as the end of hostilities in world war i, and since 1938, america has paused on november 11 to recognize veterans of all wars. this year, after 13 years of w war, we want to designate november 11, 2014, as a special "welcome home" commemoration for all who have served in the military since september 11th. we introduce this bill with the strong support of veterans' organizations, the american legion, the veterans of foreign wars, the vietnam veterans of america. the resolution promotes special

awareness of our post-9/11 veterans. it encourages communities in the united states to plan activities for veterans day 2014 with a special focus on hon experg -- d supporting those who've served during this time. mr. president, i imagine as mayor, you had veterans day commemorations in newark. as governor, we had them in virginia. and communities all over the country are right now planning what they'll do on november 11, 2014. this provides our citizens with a formal opportunity to present a unified recognition all across this country at a designated moment of the sacrifices made by our greatest generation. now, mr. president, this resolution is not all we must do for our post-9/11 veterans. we owe them a better v.a. system. we owe them a job market that understands and values their skills.

and with so many of our colleagues, we'll keep working on those issues. and, mr. president, this resolution doesn't stand for the end of wars or conflicts more generally. the daily papers will always be filled with wars and rumors of war around the globe. and we know that american troops will continue to stand ready to serve in harm's way for our best values. but for everything, there is a season, and in this year, where we finish the wars started earlier in this millennium, it's time to welcome home our post-9/11 veterans, to shine a light on their honor and sacrifice, to celebrate with those who have borne the battle and to remember with affection those who will never return. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: thank you. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from baltimore -- from maryland. mr. cardin: i am from battle momplet i ask unanimous consent that the quoarmt call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, about two weeks ago i had a chance to meet with leaders in the agricultural community to go over certain issues that are available to our farmers. i met with the nrcs chief jason wweller. i met with the maryland agricultural state secretary buddy hance. and we were talking about ways in which we wor worked togethern the agricultural community and in -- and concerned about our environment so that we can have a clean environment and a healthy agricultural industry in our state. i must tell you, i found the discussion to be ex-strombly helpful. we -- extremely helpful. we talked about the regional

conservation partnership programs. and i want to thank senator stabenow for her incredible leadership on the farm bill when we reauthorized it and we consolidated a lot of the conservation programs, particularly for specific greater water bodies into the regional partnership program. it provided new energy and tools available for conservation within agriculture so that we could have a clean environment and we could also have sustainable agriculture in that -- in our country. just recently the chesapeake bay watershed was designated as one of the critical conservation areas. that allows a certain amount of the funds under the partnership programs to be available to the critical conservation areas in our country to be used by our farmers to conserve their land, to be better stewards of the land, better stewards of our

environment, and at the same time have a sustainable agricultural program. the chesapeake bay program that was started many years ago, first under the leadership of then governor harry hughes in maryland, working with the governors of pennsylvania, the governors of delaware, expanded to include the states of new york and west virginia and virginia, of course -- worked together to establish the chesapeake bay program. it was -- they understood that for it to be successful, they had to deal with storm runoff, development issues -- no question about it; the hardeninged surface, the loss of land cause the pollutant that are in the soil, in the environment through surges to rush into our streams and rivers and into the chesapeake bay and we have to do a better job in development in dealing with storm runoff.

it also recognized the responsibility of local governments. they are the primary entity responsible for how we treat our waste, through the wastewater treatment facility plants, how we can do a better job in preventing pollutants from entering our water system. we also dealt with business growth and pollution coming in through pollution activities. but one of the major focal point was how do we deal with agriculture. in one sense, agriculture is very positive for our environment. maintaining open space is important, and agricultural activities are generally open space. so that can be good because it gives us a larger track of land in order to filter rain water to filter the pollutants from perhaps never entering the bay. but if they do enter the water system, they pwer in a way that -- they enter ma way that's already been filtered. in that sense, agricultural

preservation is important for the conservation of the bay. because of farming activities that use nitrogen and use phosphorous, it can cause significant challenges for the bay. maryland farmers, i think, have done a good job. they've done a good job for many years. but i want to talk about one farmer particularly, because i was very pleased. what i did, before this meeting i had a chance to meeting hank suchin, a farmer in baltimore county, maryland. that's pretty close to the urban centers. mr. suchin's farm is only a few miles from my house. it's interesting, he has a beef cattle farming activity. it's in the oregon branch of the

gwinn's falls river, which has been dammed which deals with our water supply. it is in the watershed that goes into the drinking water that you and i drink in the baltimore region. so we all have a significant interest in making sure that that water supply is kept safe and that we have, when we turn on tap, we drink our water, it's fresh water. mr. suchin's farm activities produce about 30 beef calves a year. that's an important number, because in order for that cattle population to be properly grazed, it needs to have a water supply and it needs to have a place where the cattle can cool off, particularly on a hot day like we saw yesterday. so the traditional farming activities for this cattle

production was to allow the cattle, as i said, the stream goes right through his property, for the cattle to use the stream for the purposes of cooling off and for the purposes of the drinking water for the cattle itself. but that was not the best way to do it for the purposes of protecting the water supply of baltimore and to deal with the chesapeake bay and to deal with our environment. because, as you know, the use of the cattle free access to the river meant that the cattle manure, the phosphorous would go into the waters causing a challenge for the water system, and it caused significant erosion to the stream bed itself. so what mr. suching did, he felt a commitment to help the environment. he said look, why don't i look

at fencing in the riverbed so that my cattle does not get direct access to the stream, and producing a supplemental water system through a water trough that you see here works through gravity, uses the aquifer, works through gravity and produces direct water for the cattle to be able to drink from. here's the interesting part. his principal motivation was that he wanted to do something that would help the environment but he still wanted to be able to produce his cattle. he felt an obligation to do this. now, the state of maryland had help for him. under partnerships with the federal government and conservation programs, there were funds available to help him fence in the property, to have a sensible crossing because he was on both sides of the creek, so that he could have a way that the cattle could cross safely and still protect the water bed

itself. that program made it more financially advantageous for him to put in the fencing so that cattle did not have direct access to the stream and to put in the water trough so that they could get fresh water. but guess what? he put a pencil to it and found out it was better economically for him to do this. it actually made his farming practices more financially viable. now how did that happen? you see, he was losing calves every season to storms when there was water surges and they get caught in the stream and they actually drowned. he was losing calves because of extreme weather, being in the stream caused hyperthermia for the calve and actually died. every time he lost a calf, it was about $1,000 he lost. this was a sound development

from -- sound investment from the point of view of the financial viability of his production. also he found that it was healthier for his cattle in two respects. first, the water supply did not include the pathogens that can be found in the streams, so he found it was healthier for his cattle to get water through the trough rather than through the stream itself. secondly, he said the growth around the stream increased dramatically because the cattle were not in the stream, and it gave better shade on the property to allow the cattle to be able to cool off through the shade in a more efficient way than going into the stream itself. my point is this. this is just one example. i could give hundreds of examples where conservation makes sense for agriculture and our environment.

and my reason for being at this farm, my reason for bringing together the leaders in agriculture in maryland is to talk about this new program that's now available, the regional conservation partnership programs that's available under the farm bill which is hundreds of millions of dollars that's now available competitively. it's not earmarked. competitively for farmers to be able to do what mr. suchin did, similar type of programs, to help themselves and to help our environment so that we can have a safer environment for our community. working together, we can have a cleaner environment and successful agriculture. there's now new tools available. we want people to know about it. we want farmers to know about it. we want conservation districts to get this information out to our farming community because, quite frankly, mr. president, agriculture is critical to maryland. it's critical to new jersey.

it's critical to this country. it's the largest single part of our local economy, and i expect it's the same in new jersey and around the nation. we want a viable agriculture. we outcompete the world in production. we want to be able to continue to do that, but we also want to pass on a cleaner environment to our children. we can do both thanks to the leadership of senator stabenow, thanks to the leadership of this body. we now have new tools available to help our farmers in conservation. i hope they'll take advantage of it for the sake of our environment and for the sake of agriculture. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 4660, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of h.r. 4660, an act making appropriations for the departments of commerce and justice, science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes.

mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: which appropriations bill that we just got on, we got on there? the presiding officer: the motion to proceed to commerce-justice-science provision. mr. inhofe: let me go ahead and make two comments on two amendments actually to the appropriations bill that is the thud appropriations bill having to do with c.n.g., natural gas vehicles. if i could just very briefly, i have two amendments that we'll be going on. one is number 3245. on that one, it's the regulatory streamlining for the use of natural gas. this will allow to us give some of the same treatment to that. and in fact, i'm joined with senator carl levin on this amendment, to have access to h.o.v. lanes for certain vehicles that are using natural gas.

so that's one of them. the other one is an amendment number 3275, having to do with the fact that trucks, light trucks that ute natural gas, because of the additional weight of the equipment, we would give some leniency, up to 2,000 pounds, in terms of the total weight to allow them, encourage them to use compressed natural gas as opposed to fuel. those are two amendments when the time comes, that i just wanted to get into the record, that i will be proposing at that time. i thank the senator from maine for giving me a few minutes of her time. i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the

clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: